~~~

~~~

~~~

~~~

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

TEA PARTIERS ON BOSTON COMMON, April 14, 2010

The Boston Common has been the site of many a protest. I remember witnessing them during the Iraq War protests. The Common has also been the site of the famous Boston Freedom Rally every September. Today, April 14, 2010, it was the Tea Party's turn to show up and show us their slogans.

The crowd was not as large as the one that assembled for the Iraq War protest--sizable, yes, but not huge. In fact, I would say it wasn't very large at all, considering that this was a beautiful spring day in Beantown.

I spoke to a few of the Tea Partiers and asked them very politely why they were there. The common answer was "to send a message to Washington," and "to take back our country." When I asked a few of the TPs why they felt they had to "take back their country," their answers were not very clear or specific. The answers were rather vague and, not surprisingly, very Beckish. A lot of them proudly admitted to being fans of Beck and Fox News. No surprise there

When I asked them if they were as upset with Mr. Bush when he mortgaged their children's future to fight the Iraqi war of choice, they didn't answer me, instead, they changed the subject and said Mr. Obama doubled the debt in one year. They all agreed that the passage of health care reform was part of Mr. Obama's plan to turn the US into a socialistic country. Plan? When I asked them if they or any of their relatives were on Social Security or Medicare and if that made us a socialistic country, they had no answer for me.

I met a number of college students--Suffolk University is just down the block from the Common, and Emerson is nearby. The students all were carrying anti-Palin signs, and were very supportive of the president. This seems to be the norm nationally--young people are still one of Mr. Obama's strongest demographic supporters. I saw very few carrying signs for Palin.

I spent most of my time mingling with the crowd and talking to people. I heard Sarah Palin speak, but I can't remember a thing she said.

My camera ran out of charge before I could capture some really clever signs, but a delightful man standing in the crowd had his camera with him and offered to email me those that I missed (he's an amateur photographer). We had a very pleasant chat and discovered that we grew up in the same neighborhoods around greater Boston. I hope he sends me the photos he took soon so I can post them.

My take on this whole phenomenon is that there is real anger out there, but it is selective, and IMHO, directed at a man who had nothing to do with the difficulties we faced in the beginning of 2009. Bush, as you'll recall, inherited a $128 billion budget surplus from Bill Clinton when he took office in 2001. Bush quickly squandered that and then proceeded to rack up gigantic budget deficits every year of his two terms in office.

Under Bush, the national debt grew by more than $4 trillion: the biggest debt increase of any president in U.S. history.

Where were the angry tea partiers then?

When Bush took office in 2001, the national debt stood at $5.7 trillion. At the end of Bush's two terms, the debt had skyrocketed to more than $9.849 trillion. And remember: Bush enjoyed a Republican Senate and House of Representatives during most of his time in office.

This movement is all so puzzling to me and to many others who wonder why people are so angry now, and not when George W. Bush oversaw the collapse of our economy.

I have my own suspicions, but right now, this movement has gathered momentum, and it is based on a lot of misinformation and confusion, abetted by people like Palin who stand to make a lot of money encouraging that confusion and fear.

I wrote a post similar to this, asking where these deficit hawks were when the massive tax cuts, unfunded Medicare expansions, and unfunded wars of choice were passed through Congress. No marches then, of course. No outraged cries to "take our country back."

Apparently, spending is perfectly fine, as long as the spending is for something that explodes.

I obviously can't argue with firsthand experience, so let me throw out a few of my thoroughly unhumble thoughts.

First of all, most people I talk to outside of the blogosphere have a problem articulating why something is wrong even when they know something is, because we've essentially become a culture that has replaced wisdom and reflection with sound bites, slogans, and inane tweets (of which I am now one of them (the tweeters, that is)).

In addition, it is very much a movement centered in anger at the unchecked expansion of the government. And while the majority of these citizens may not be clear as to why they're pissed off, I'm glad to be able to count myself as one of them. So let me pick up the slack.

As for being upset with Bush over Iraq, of course none of us are upset over that. War (agree or disagree with the motivations of a particular war) is a legitimate function of the federal government. Medicare drug benefits and the idiocy of No Child Left Behind, not to mention the bipartisan bailout/screwjob of 2008 is mortgaging our future for the glory of an ever-expanding federal government, which has been doubled down on in one year of Obama, with government-run health care, the pseudo-stimulus, unemployment benefits stretching into a THIRD year of unemployment, etc.

Social Security and Medicare combined are the reason, now with the addition of government-run health care, the reason that this country will collapse, from both an inability to pay for the programs (social security is going into the red permanently this year now), and because, like all attempts to redistribute income in an misguided attempt to "help" people, the programs are creating an ever-expanding moocher class, who increasingly lives by getting money politicians have taken from others. And once that describes the majority of Americans, we descend into mob rule because the only politicians who get elected are the ones who keep writing bigger checks.

Finally, I would like to see the girl go gay with Palin though. HOT! :)

Seattle hosts our own Tea Party shindig tomorrow and my intention is to stop by and have a look at the real Americans. Depends on whether I can shake loose from my collectivization duties or not. Actually I am attending a community meeting regarding public safety & civility issues but what's the difference?

Things are kind of busy these days as we work around the clock to subvert what's left of the constitution and grease the wheels for the nation's final descent into tyranny.

"In addition, it is very much a movement centered in anger at the unchecked expansion of the government. And while the majority of these citizens may not be clear as to why they're pissed off, I'm glad to be able to count myself as one of them."

In all seriousness.

I'm afraid that isn't good enough. The fact that tens of thousands of Americans are 'pissed off' at 'the unchecked expansion of government' is nonsense. None of these folks showed the slightest upset when power concentrated in the executive branch expanded by leaps and bounds in the post 9/11 climate of fear-mongering driven by the powers that be. Nor did they raise a peep at the expense of mounting a couple of hot wars on the nations credit card. I for one am tired of the insane echo I keep hearing of "I wasn't too much on politics and current events until THEY took my country away'.

Enough already.

The nation is not going broke and will not go broke through spending on programs such as medicare, social security and the new health care plan. Nor are we faced with collectivization, re-education and enslavement.

In fact I'd wager the nation will emerge from the current mess with renewed vigor. And if congress works a little harder to insure business acts responsibly (tightening up regulatory oversight) and if congress enacts some real immigration reform we'll be more competitive than ever before.

Arthur: I wish I could be clearer, or have my explanation be "good enough" but with such a wide range of people, it's bound to be imprecise.

And there is a clear difference in fighting wars around the world and building bureaucracies that don't end and sponge up the taxes (and you ignore the ones that I listed that Bush was responsible for).

And I'll admit to being one of those that wasn't paying attention early on, and not saying something sooner. Thankfully, I can point out that people really started waking up before the election of 2008, when BOTH parties conspired to bail out Wall Street. I was coming around earlier than that, and looking back on the prior 8 years with a mixture of pride and anger.

I will concede, however, that there are plenty of people in the mix for whom the blind spirit of party rules all, and that's why we have a beauty contest every four years where we try to pick which of two idiots suck less, with the result being one side claiming the other is the devil.

By the way, I'm just waiting for you to fling out the r-word, because I just have a feeling you're thinking it.

Lucky you Shaw, sounds like you had a fun day, I'm jealous!When I see the teabaggers speak on TV about why it is they are there and why it is they weren't protesting when Bush was president, it's exactly like you described. They are Beck and Fox puppets, hypnotized by them and walking around like dumb zombies.

Patrick M says..."As for being upset with Bush over Iraq, of course none of us are upset over that. War (agree or disagree with the motivations of a particular war) is a legitimate function of the federal government."

"...the most active Tea Partiers hold especially favorable views of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, and 50 percent think Sarah Palin has the ability to be an effective president. Among Tea Partiers in general, just 40 percent think she has that ability.

Twenty-four percent of Tea Partiers think violent action against the government could be justified, but that number rises to 32 percent among Tea Party activists.

More than three in four Tea Party activists get their television political news from Fox News Channel. "

A completely pointless question. Because no one askes why Moveon.org was not protesting Clinton or Reagan. Or why Kos did not blog blow-by-blow daily updates to the outrages of the Nixon administration. None of these existed then.. someone thought them up later.

"Wow, shocking!! Even a war based on LIES??"

Which has nothing to do with the justified retaliation against Saddam Hussein's regime. It fits the Spanish-American war though. Way to go with 100 years off topic.

Now to revisit Shaw's reference to ""when he mortgaged their children's future to fight the Iraqi war of choice"

She must be referring to the efforts against the terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq, as "wars of choice" is an inconsistent buzzword some use.

According to Cost of War, the total cost of the wars since 2001 is still under one trillion. This total over 9 years is smaller than just one year of Obama deficit. It is also a small portion of Bush's total debt spending. So it was other waste spending, not the wars, which were the real problem. And year by year, the amount spent on fighting the terrorists was a small part of the Bush yearly budgets.

"A completely pointless question. Because no one askes why Moveon.org was not protesting Clinton or Reagan."

A completely pointless remark, dmarks, since Moveon.org wasn't in existence during Reagan's administration--it was formed during Clinton's impeachment--also, you've left out the glaring fact that Moveon.org never had an entire cable news station, FOX, a former vice presidential candidate, a 3-hour a day, 5-day a week radio hate talker supporting it. Your comparison doen't work at all between Moveon.org and the corporate financed Tea Party movement.

Loretta Napoleoni was interviewed on the BBC last night. Good stuff and a refreshing break from the typical American reporting on the issue which has sadly become, like the coverage on virtually every other story of national import, an exercise in unknotting false equivalences tied by the powers that be who got us into this ridiculous mess.

The point is that the Bush administration increased the size of government, plunged the country into debt and deficits, and not a peep from the people who went bezerk when President Obama was 1 month in office.

The point is NOT that the Tea Party didn't exist. The point is that the white male Republicans who wasted no time in demonstrating their rage over Mr. Obama's policies didn't feel moved to show it when Mr. Bush went against all Republican values while he was in office.

Does anyone have any understanding over why the health care issue had to be addressed? Doesn't anyone understand that the health care costs are driving us over the financial precipice? And that according to the best minds who know about rescuing economies from disaster, that money has to be put into the economy to prevent it from total collapse.

All of this DOES run up the debt, but Mr. Obama didn't create the circumstances that forced him to address the crises.

"The point is that the white male Republicans..."--SK

"Way to be sexist AND racist."--dmarks

demarks, the New York Times published a detailed poll on who exactly are the Tea Partiers. The poll showed that the TPs are overwhelmingly white male Republicans.

How is that sexist and racist? It's like calling me sexist and racist for observing that the US Senate is white and male. Those are facts. The US Senate is overwhelmingly white and male.

"It is not racist when there is no evidence of racism."--dmarks

Obviously you haven't seen the racist emails the Right passes around thinking no one else gets hold of them--the one, for example, showing Mr. Obama as a witch doctor with a bone through his nose, the one showing the White House lawn covered with watermelons, the one photo shopped showing Mrs. Obama dressed as a whore and Mr. Obama as a pimp, the one photoshopped showing Mrs. Obama as a gorilla. I could go on and on. Those emails and photos I find on various Rightwing blogs all dipict the Obamas as a racial steriotype--IOW--celebrating racism in all its ugly, dirty, and stupid glory.

Andrew Sullivan of the Daily Dish agrees for the most part with my answer to dmarks and the financial mess we're in:

"...Obama is a liberal who believes government can and should help the poor and disadvantaged and has proven it by providing access to insurance for the working poor. But it's unfair because Obama's fiscal and governing record is massively distorted by the impact of the bank meltdown, the steep revenue-killing recession, and the stimulus. Until its last months, the Bush administration could claim no such excuses for its awful debt-management. The big Bush jumps in discretionary spending, the big leap in entitlements under the unfunded Medicare D program, the long nation-building wars put off-budget, and the huge claims for executive power dominant in the first term: all these are far more damning to my mind than Obama's pragmatism in grappling with an economic collapse or even the healthcare reform, which at least formally claims to reduce the deficit and pay for itself (unlike Bush's Medicare-D). Even the protests at the manner in which the health reform was passed are disingenuous. The Medicare-D process - involving holding the vote open for hours and brutal arm-twisting on the floor of the House - was far, far more cynical and brutal.

And this is why, despite my own deep suspicion of big government, I remain unmoved by the tea-partiers. Their partisanship and cultural hostility to Obama are far more intense, it seems to me, than their genuine proposals to reduce spending and taxation. And this is largely because they have no genuine proposals to reduce spending and taxation. They seem very protective of Medicare and Social Security - and their older age bracket underlines this. They also seem primed for maximal neo-imperial reach, backing the nation-building efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, favoring war against Iran, etc. Only Ron Paul, peace be upon him, extends his big government critique to the military-industrial-ideological complex.

So they are truly not serious in policy terms, and it behooves the small government right to grapple with this honestly. They both support lower taxation and yet bemoan the fact that so many Americans do not pay any income tax. They want to cut spending on trivial matters while enabling the entitlement and defense behemoths to go on gobbling up Americans' wealth. And that lack of seriousness is complemented by a near-fanatical cultural alienation from the modern world.

In my view, this confluence of feelings can work in shifting the public mood, as seems to have happened. When there is no internal pushback against crafted FNC propaganda, and when the Democrats seem unable to craft any coherent political message below the presidential level, you do indeed create a self-perpetuating fantasy that can indeed rally and roil people. But the abstract slogans against government, the childish reduction of necessary trade-offs as an apocalyptic battle between freedom and slavery, and the silly ranting at all things Washington: these are not a political movement. They are cultural vents, wrapped up with some ugly Dixie-like strands.

When they propose cuts in Medicare, means-testing Social Security, a raising of the retirement age and a cut in defense spending, I'll take them seriously and wish them well.

Until then, I'll treat them with the condescending contempt they have thus far deserved."--A.Sullivan

Shaw: Thanks for quoting a leftist columnist who likes to spin things whether or not they are true. It's just like as if I were to quote Rush Limbaugh.

If the (R) and the (D) after Bush's and Obama's names were reversed, he'd be blaming Obama 100% for the mess he has (mis) managed since he took office.

J Mopper said: "The stimulus is aimed at correcting the ill economic conditions that Obama inherited."

So what do the billions of waste spending, political paybacks and earmarks (including billions in foreign aid!) "correct"? The answer is "none". By blowing his chance to do something to actually help the economy, Obama completely made the economic conditions his own.

Shaw: You are being sexist and racist for fixating on someone's gender and race. As for me, I just don't care what race or sex someone is.

"Racism is very much a part of what the Tea Party is about, whether you accept it or not."

You have proven that your opposition to the movement is based on your own racism and sexism.

The incidents you describe (bone in the nose, etc) are deplorable and deserve to be exposed. However, they represent a few bad apples. A very few out of a non-racial movement.

A non-racial tea party movement that would have existed just the same under President Edwards or President Hillary. Only then the bigots of the left would have a harder time conjuring up the race card to attempt to stifle dissent.

No reasonalbe person would call me racist because I cited information on the makeup of the Tea Party movement--I suppose you also think the New York Times is racist and sexist because they published the results of the poll which showed that the Tea Party movement is overwhelmingly made up of white Republican males.

The US Senate is overwhelmingly white and male with a majority of Democrats.

That statement is the same in context as the one about the Tea Party movement.

If you believe stating facts is being racist and sexist, you're terribly wrong.

And you lose any argument when you compare Limbaugh--(who has been caught spreading lies, and engaging in racial taunting over President Obama)with Andrew Sullivan, who is a serious journalist--one apparently you dislike, but he is not an entertainer who deals in demagoguery and hate.

It's beginning to dawn on our pack animal friends in the media that there's less "there" there to the Tea Party than Fox would have you believe, and the usual Republican elite (see Dick Armey and FreedomWorks) is funding the faux populist show. But it's so much more interesting to cover the tea party than to cover issues or fact-check Michele Bachmann, like noting that (hard facts) Americans are suffering under the lowest tax rate in 60 years, 98% of Americans got a tax break this year, most Americans think their taxes are fair, etc... because, y'know the tea party is all about taxes and not about the black Democrat in the WH.

Shaw: Fixation on race and gender is the problem. I'm not a bigot, so I don't really care.

As for demagogues, with Sullivan, you give them a free pass when they are on your side. I'm winning this argument by not siding with either.

"If you believe stating facts is being racist and sexist, you're terribly wrong."

I'm very correct. There's a long record of bigots using "facts" and statistics in a twisted way to make their case. Another example of it that comes up way to much from other racists is the case that black people are somehow terrible due to crime statistics. I heard a more ludicrous example of this a few years ago when a left-wing racist on NPR was bashing a certain church denomination (maybe Southern Baptists?) because its members were mostly white. This same pointless fact is also perfectly true of the Democratic Party, but you won't see such left-wing bigots use that fact, for sure.

As for Sullivan's complete Limbaughisness, I visited his site again, and found the item on Palin and Christianity, in which he sneeringly accuses Palin of being a Christian ("in case you had any doubt").

Similar folks on the fringes on the other side make an issue of Obama's being a Muslim (althought the accusation is false, the point remains, why fixate on it). It also echoes the religious bigots from the early 1960s who raised the alarm about JFK and his faith.

"I'm very correct. There's a long record of bigots using "facts" and statistics in a twisted way to make their case."--dmarks

There is nothing twisted or bigoted about the observation and fact that the US Senate is overwhelmingly white and male. And nothing racist about the fact that the Tea Party movement is overwhelmingly white Republican male.

You're not going to win this point by continually stating something that is incorrect. This is what FOX news does. And you seem to be using their tactics.

"I heard a more ludicrous example of this a few years ago when a left-wing racist on NPR was bashing a certain church denomination (maybe Southern Baptists?) because its members were mostly white."--dmarks

Whomever this person was, he was not racist for stating a fact--Souther Baptists are mostly white. So? Catholic priests are male. Is that sexist to state that fact?

"This same pointless fact is also perfectly true of the Democratic Party, but you won't see such left-wing bigots use that fact, for sure."--dmarks

But you fail to understand that this nation is [at this point anyway] mostly white, so it follows that the two political parties would have more whites than people of color.

BTW, 98% of our African-American citizens identify as Democrats.

There may be good reason that so many people of color prefer the Democrats over the Republicans.

He was racist for bashing that denomination over demographics: the racism shows in the selective use of facts in a hypocritical fashion.

"You're not going to win this point by continually stating something that is incorrect"

Actually, I am continually stating something that is correct. So it is nothing to do with Fox News. If we really want to go into the saying incorrect things over and over again thing, I could point out your usual statements about the Iraq war.

"Whomever this person was, he was not racist for stating a fact--Souther Baptists are mostly white. "

So do you say the same thing to those who dwell on "facts" like the black crime rate? Which I don't care about personally, but I'm just using it as another example of how fixation on race-related "Facts" is problematic.

"...would have more whites than people of color."

Colored people? What a quaint phrase, even if slightly altered. And that is exactly what you are saying. People of color = colored people. Which is always pretty silly to say since everyone has a oclor. But anyway....

"There may be good reason that so many people of color prefer the Democrats over the Republicans."

Well, one reason the "coloreds" do this is because many are bought out by the blatant positive-racism from the Left. Successful divide-and-conquer policies which give politicians short-term gains of power but fray the fabric of socoeity. Policies such as affirmative action quotas/goals, which give them special advantage compared to treating everyone equally and fairly. Like if a political party easily secured the Haitian immigrant vote by giving just Haitians a $600 tax credit.

"But you fail to understand that this nation is [at this point anyway] mostly white,"

I do understand this. And this fact blunts the point of those who make such a big deal about other broad-based groups that happen to also be mostly white. It seems that you don't understand your own statement, in light of the earlier discussion of the guy commenting on Southern Baptists. That guy was specifically using the "mostly white" fact as evidence that the Southern Baptists were racist.

The phrase "people of color" is used by Latinos and African-Americans and other cultures (Asian) and is favored by these groups. I believe people have the right to be called what they prefer whether it's African-American, Black, or People of Color. If you see the phrase "people of color" as "colored people," that's your burden not ours.

FROM WIKIPEDIA: Person of color (plural: "people of color;" Commonwealth English: person of colour) is a term used, primarily in the United States and Germany, to describe all people who are not white. The term is meant to be inclusive among non-white groups, emphasizing common experiences of racism. People of color is preferred to both non-white and minority, which are also inclusive, because it frames the subject positively; non-white defines people in terms of what they are not (white), and minority, by its very definition, carries a subordinate connotation.

Although the term citizens of color was used by Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1963, and other uses date to as early as 1818, people of color did not gain prominence for many years. Influenced by radical theorists like Frantz Fanon, racial justice activists in the U.S. began to use the term people of color in the late 1970s. By the early 1990s, it was in wide circulation. Both anti-racist activists and academics sought to move understandings of race beyond the black-white binary then prevalent

As the March Hare in Alice in Wonderland put it: "I see what I eat" is NOT the same thing as "I eat what I see"!

dmarks wrote: "That guy was specifically using the "mostly white" fact as evidence that the Southern Baptists were racist."

Unless you were physically in the room to question his motives for using the "mostly white," to describe Southern Baptists, it appears it may be you who has the problem, since you are the one quick to use the terms "racistne" and "sexist" where none is intended.

It follows that if a few drums of 30 year old nerve gas (originally used at US urging) is grounds for a military invasion costing tens of thousands of lives, trillions of dollars and dividing the country then mentioning the fact of differences in the color of persons skins is in itself racist.

Shaw: It is just a semantic trick. A version of colored people, like like "people of Indonesia" is a version of "Indonesians". I don't use the colored people phrase, in any form.

Thanks for the old reference to Dr. King's reference to colored citizens.

As for the racist commenting on NPR about the race of Soutnern Baptists, I was listening to the radio, and I heard him specifically use this "Fact" as part of an overall racist argument.

---------------

Arthur: The WMD violations were just one of the many violations of the cease-fire. Other significant ones included his hosting and funding of a wide variety of terrorist groups, and his attacks on US peacekeepers. The lesson of 9/11 was to not let terrorist leaders keep attacking us without consequence. It had to stop.

Even now you are flat-out lying about this. Either that, or you know nothing about the subject. A number between 50 and 500 is not a "few". The WMD that have been found are described as "munitions". It is highly misleading to call them "drums".

Or are you one to call army tanks "SUVs" and rifles "cheerleader batons" ?

"trillions of dollars"

It is actually far less than a trillion.

"Tens of thousands of lives" is troubling, but then you realize the fact that as before the invasion, the majority of deaths were caused by Saddam and other terrorists. And then there is the fact that the successful "surge" policy of the Bush Administration (continued by Obama) has brought the death toll in Iraq down extremely low. Much lower than any time during the war or during Saddam's reign of terror.

Did anyone notice if Palin had any notes on her hand this time? If she did I bet this is what they said:

"Boston- home of original Tea Party. DON'T FORGET (underlined twice). Opposite side of country from Alaska but was told can still see Russia from top of Hancock Building. Try to mention this 'Teddy' people keep talking about, sounds like a popular guy"

But I digress. I think it's ridiculously hypocritcal for anti-Obama, anti-tax crazies to complain about how much the federal government is wasting their money. WHERE HAVE YOU PEOPLE BEEN?? How is it OK to waste billions upon billions of dollars in Iraq but high-minded social programs bear the brunt of intense and borderline scary opposition? I guess out of sight really is out of mind for some people.

I realize Bush had plenty of crazy opposition, but when your policies are resulting in dozens of deaths a week you should expect some people to be pissed. Obama's agenda has brought out the anger of a hypocritical and highly partisan part of the country that needs to get its facts straight.